Observational studyAntimicrobial resistance and infection control2024
Under Armour - Use of personal protective equipment for simulated CPR of COVID-19 patients: an observational study.
Observational study in Antimicrobial resistance and infection control, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPersonal protective equipment (PPE) protects healthcare workers and patients. Data on guideline compliance on how to dress (donning) or remove (doffing) PPE and the assistance among multiple participants (buddying) are limited. This study assesses the quality of donning, doffing, and buddying of PPE in a simulated medical emergency.
methodPhysicians handling a simulated cardiac arrest of a COVID-19 patient. Adjacent to the victim, PPE was available. The appropriateness of PPE choice was assessed by using video recordings, with each individual participant being analyzed from the beginning of the simulation scenario from two perspectives regarding the selection of items during donning and doffing, hygiene aspects, time, and team support (buddying). The primary outcome was the number of participants being appropriately protected, defined as both wearing (a) all PPE items provided, and (b) all PPE items correctly at the time of first patient contact (FPC). Secondary outcomes included the timing of participants being appropriately protected. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS (version 28). Mann-Whitney test, chi-square test, and linear regression analysis were performed as appropriate.
resultsAt first patient contact 21% (91/437) were correctly protected. One or more incorrect PPE items were found in 4% (19/437), whereas 61% (265/437) wore one or more PPE items incorrectly. In 14% (62/437), one or more PPE items were missing. The time interval between donning start and FPC was 66 (55-78) sec. Time to FPC was longer in correctly than in incorrectly protected participants 77 (66-87) vs. 64 (54-75) sec; p < 0.001) and decreased by 7 ± 2 s per PPE item omitted (P = 0.002). Correct doffing was observed in 192/345 (56%), while buddying occurred in 120 participants (27%), indicating that they either assisted other participants in some manner (verbally or physically) or received assistance themselves.
conclusionsOur findings imply a need for education in correct and timely PPE donning and doffing. Donning PPE as intended delayed FPC. This and the influence of buddying needs further investigation (German study register number DRKS00023184).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.